About your Search

20121117
20121117
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
state department officials from the obama and george w. bush administration's discuss public diplomacy in a tough budget in vermont. the discuss the effectiveness of student exchange programs and government-backed broadcasting outlets, like "voice of america." the george washington school of international affairs hosted this event tuesday. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> that is public diplomacy in action. [laughter] i'm a professor here at gw and the director of the institute for public policy and global communication. you can find us on twitter @ip dgc. we're also on facebook. we're hosting a conversation on twitter about this event,, hashtag ipdgc. what i will do to get as a rolling here is give a brief introduction and bio for our great panel here, and then get going into the discussion. we have a great -- with a lot of interesting people in the room. we need to leave time for discussion. first we have james glassman. executive director of the george w. bush institute. after a long career in journalism, he served as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs
that happens, most likely iranian supported elements started this. >> obama administration backs israel. is president obama standing with israel as in your judgment as he should? >> yes. so far he did. in the sense that he has no other option. no american president can come and say i'm with hamas against israel. he is with israel against hamas. at the same time this is the worst time for explosion to occur in the middle east. we know our situation in. we have an economic situation. ee needs unity in congress that is support of israel. we have the benghazi hearing. we may have to look at our national security doctrine. we have an arab spring that is being taken over by islamists. so putting that pressure that the u.s. can only do this and not more. >> gregg: hamas runs the authority in gaza. it's also a terrorist organization. it is recognized as a terrorist organization by the united states. hamas refuses to recognize israel, it's charter to this day vows the destruction of israel. does the international community including importantly the united nations need to stop supporting the hama
to do so. that was revoked by the obama administration and granted by the bush should ministrations previously. alaska wants to do more oil exploration. everybody wants to get sources of energy in their state so not only to be able to get the job of getting out but also to attract chemical manufacturing companies with lower energy prices so this is the choice we have before us and to me is clearly a way to go. i would like to thank all of you for listening and i would be happy to take any questions. [applause] >> thanks. if i could lead off with one question, among the natural gas reserves you refer to, very substantial natural gas reserves in this stage, upstate new york. if by some fluke you had governor cuomo regarding potential for hydrofracking, what might you say to him? >> look at the example of pennsylvania which has created many jobs through hydro fracturing and doing well in that regard and they haven't experienced environmental problems and with new york's budget deficit it seems obvious that hydro fracking is the way to go and governor cuomo is free to set whatever regul
department first two years of the obama administration. but there's also a republican i'm going to mention here, richard haas. he's currently the president of the council on foreign relations, and he was a special assistant to president george h.w. bush, and during the administration of george w. bush, he served as the commissioner of policy and planning, same position as slaughter. he argues that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but it needs to become weaker. states should wont a weakened sovereignty, he says, ford to protect himselfs -- in order to protect themselves. i want to make one thing absolutely cheer clear. i'm not talking against international law in general or against international relations, and i draw a clear distinction between transnationalism and globalism and nationalism. there's nothing wrong with having international treaties. that means between nations. so the united states has a nato treaty. we get together with western europe, we're going to defend ourselfves, there's nothing wrong with that. same thing. i am criticizing in the book supernational,
be eager to help if the reelected obama administration wanted to take the lead and kickstart a process that deserves to be called a peace process. we certainly hope that would have been. with regard to the drug problem, i just want to add that of course everybody is now buying drones, even european armies are buying drones. but interestingly enough, as are injurious to countries in other parts of the world has declined because of the not so successful experience in over the last decade. i hope i'm correct i cannot recall a moment in recent history where in the absence of, you know, act of u.s. leadership or participation, the europeans are contemplating driving up plans right now for a military mission to molly. with the argument that what is going on in molly could he not necessarily, but could develop into something very similar to the kinds of phenomena that forced us into afghanistan a decade ago. so what i'm trying to say is the birth of the drug technology matters, i don't believe international development will allow us the luxury of keeping the boys home. there will be unfortuna
the obama administration that we would approve this pipeline. we're going back to d.c. on sunday to thousands of us to remind the white house we haven't forgotten. >> i want to talk about the pipeline. i do think there's good news on the horizon and some kind of breakup in some of the political stalemate that we've seen right after this break. into their work, their name on the door, and their heart into their community. small business saturday is a day to show our support. a day to shop at stores owned by our friends and neighbors. and do our part for the businesses that do so much for us. on november 24th, let's get out and shop small. >>> the keystone pipeline is a pipeline that would bring tar sands oil from canada down into the u.s. and tar sands oil is particularly toxic. carbon intensive stuff, right? it's ot not the easy light sweet crude. >> disgusting i think is the technical term. >> it's disgusting stuff but it's valuable. that's why they're pulling it out and bring it down. it turned into a political football. >> they're bringing it to the gulf coast to export a lot
with america's immediate neighbors. last year the obama administration blocked an extension to the keystone excel pipeline that would help deliver oil from canada's tar sands, eyely controversy bull productive sands to the gulf of mexico. largely on environmental grounds. now the state department is reviewing the pipeline route. the pipeline will likely get approval and get built. either way, the energy relationship between the u.s. and canada will continue to grow. and while president obama meets with his newly elected mexican counter part this month, a major topic will be obama's goil goal for immigration reform. it's a domestic issue with regional economic implications for both the united states and mexico. so president obama has got a lot to think about. joining me now is fareed zakaria. he is host of "gps." you understand the economy and foreign affairs. let's talk about europe first of all. you get the impression that china was the biggest economic threat to the united states. but if europe doesn't get its act together, the trade between europe and the u.s. is greater. should the pres
accuse the obama administration of we is fairly fictitious. for the past several decades, even as coal production was increasing to record levels, because of increased mechanization, replacement of underground mining, and now mountaintop removal that destroys the entire mountains and ecosystems in west virginia and other parts of appalachia, using fewer and fewer workers to do that. the corporations, the fossil fuel companies that have an addiction to fossil-based fuels are the ones destroying the jobs of workers, but we need to find ways to transition the workers into new, productive jobs, better sustainable, and are building the clean energy economy for this country. the other part of this question about antiquated building codes and other restrictions, the caller is right. it is medieval bad -- that homeowners are restricted from putting solar panels on their houses that would be part of a transition. it is simply medieval -- similarly medieval that a company has not been able to build the first large-scale offshore wind farm in nantucket sound because a relatively small number of w
moment. i think the message you hear from the obama administration is that moment is not coming back again. you have to pick your fights and pick them according to national interests. i think what will be fascinating in the mideast, as you saw in libya, where we got into a discussion, a debate between the republican defense secretary, robert gates, who said there is no national interest here and people like secretary clinton, susan rice and others who said we have a responsibility to protect and not was the argument for going in and -- that was the argument for going in. that argument remains unsettled today, and that is the doubt i think you were picking up on in your question. >> i will make several comments. in europe, a look at it this way. first, when you look at, globally, countries, the united states has had the capability, and even in this period of time, but secondly, it is the united states that has taken the responsibility and stepped forward. i cannot point to another country that has been willing to take that responsibility. having said that, david refers to how we
administration particularly the obama years and whether we are getting any stronger or whether we are in a more precarious position than we have been before. >> host: mary in chris christie, texas, you are on booktv with david rothkopf. >> caller: i find this conversation very interesting. i was wondering if you could comment on the reckoning that is to come a little bit. >> guest: one dimension of the reckoning that lies ahead is the competition between capitalism. right now in the united states coming out of a period where we have in the ascending power, we have been the ones who have sort of set the standard for all markets and governments should work together but clearly the asian economies are thriving and growing faster and their version of capitalism which is a much bigger role for government, which has government playing more of a straw role in picking winners and losers, determining who gets educator and how they get educated, those forms of capitalism seem to be gaining the upper hand in the global debate and we have to recognize if we don't address the flaws in our own system like th
mccain that they are not going to cooperate with the second administration of barack obama, that they are going to stall out all of his nominations. this is their warning shot that they are going to filibuster her appointment and perhaps anybody else's. i think that's what it is. and here is the intelligence committee member. >> again, i'm really confused. the only point in contention really is whether or not this attack emerged from a protest and as soon as the information became clearer and it did take some time for that to happen, then that was perfectly clarified. there is absolutely -- it's inconceivable to me for anybody to speculate there would be a deliberate misleading of the american people. why would there be? it's perfectly inconsequential al. there was a spontaneous demonstration and the terrorist groups organized to take opportunistic advantage of it or not. in any case, there is no advantage to mislead the american people in that regard. i mean you have to have motivation behind it and there is none. and as soon as the intelligence became clearer and as a mem
during the entire bush administration. by the time president obama is rehydrated on january 20th, there's probably about 300 in his first term. cipro is an example of something the united states was worried about defensively, but was only beginning to go ostensibly at the very end of the bush administration. olympic games, program against iran was something that managed to expand considerably until someone made a programming error and got out to the world. special forces is something we've been lying on far more now as a light footprint strategy than we ever did before. with each one of these repulsive discovered that the return curve of when other powers or nonstate actors will have the same technology is shorter and shorter. so you now, we see china, israel, others have drones now. every nymphet drums right now. it's going to be a very short time. before we do with the other side of that. we're already dealing with cyberattacks each and every day on our infrastructure, not the kind in the olympic games, but similar kinds. the answer to your question is it can reinforce existing power
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)